Trump is destroying the foundations of the unprecedented peace, security, and prosperity that the United States essentially built 80 years ago, and has enjoyed ever since.
Succinct summary from the always trenchant keyboard of Stefan Korshak in Kiev:
"I am not making a bit of this up nor am I exaggerating. The past week saw the US foreign policy leadership:
- Blame Ukraine for starting the war with Russia
- Call President Volydymyr Zelensky “a dictator”
- Question Zelensky’s legitimacy
- Demand Ukraine ignore its constitution and hold wartime elections
- Lie about Zelensky’s popularity (Trump said 4 percent, the actual number is 50–57 percent)
- Offer Ukraine a minerals development contract so punitive in its terms, that the Versailles Treaty signed by Germany at the end of WWI was less exploitative
- Accuse Zelensky of sabotaging the peace plan because he didn’t sign a colonialist deal that would have impressed Leopold II of Belgium
- Opine that Russia could have defeated Ukraine any time it wanted to
- Refuse to condemn Russian aggression in a 3-year-invasion anniversary statement by G7 nations
- Refuse to allow language about Ukrainian territorial integrity into a UN declaration about the same thing
- Announce 40 percent cuts to Pentagon spending over the next five years with forces in Europe squarely targeted for RIF
- Declare the Republican-led Congress won’t even consider more military aid to Ukraine
- State that, really, there is no reason for Ukraine to be present at peace talks with Russia
The result of such an avalanche of thunderous foreign policy pronouncements was predictable."
Jonathan Turley in “The Hill” explains the absurdity of illiberal Europeans, especially the British, French and Germans, claiming to revere the liberal world order while emulating the most authoritarian regimes. See,
Oh yes, moral equivalence. "We execute children, true -- but you have racism!" There is no difference between laws disallowing the existence Nazi political parties and laws disallowing the existence of gays and dissidents. Russia is the same as we are; were it not for the CIA, we would all be brothers!
No, of course there is no moral equivalence. No reasonable person would suggest there is. Nevertheless the defining feature of liberalism is pluralism. Pluralism is practically defined as freedom and tolerance for different religious views. The willingness of the UK to arrest and jail citizens who are silently praying is profoundly illiberal. There have even been reports that the Scottish authorities have warned citizens with homes in an exclusion zone adjacent to abortion clinics that they can be charged with a crime if they speak negatively about abortion rights in their own homes. Obviously that’s not the same as putting people in concentration camps or throwing them in dundgeons without trial, but there is nothing liberal about it and it makes clowns of the anti religious bigots who pretend to care about the liberal world order. If Claire is offended about any of this she can say so but so far, she’s been silent on the issue. If you would like to argue that there’s nothing illiberal about arresting people for silently praying in a forbidden location, I would be curious to hear your argument.
Freedom of speech is also a cardinal principle of pluralism. Like the British and the Germans, Claire seems indifferent to freedom of speech though her ability to make a living depends on it. The British, the Germans and several other EU nations believe that the government, because its elected by a majority of its citizens, has the right to curate speech. In other words, they believe in censorship. The censors are always the bad guys, never the good guys; don’t you agree?
Censorship is an anathema to liberal democracy. If you support censorship you can’t claim to support the liberal world order without looking ridiculous.
Free elections are another fundamental facet of democracy. If elections are cancelled because the nation’s rulers fear the wrong side is going to win, the only word for that is a coup. That’s what happened in Romania. I am sure that it’s true that Russia used nefarious means to influence public opinion. That’s what powerful governments do. The United States has done the same thing on numerous occasions, including attempts to influence elections in Ukraine and Israel. Those who support cancelling elections because of the fear of what the results might be, can’t claim to support liberal democracy. Think about it; it is absurd for people (like Claire) who thought the crowd on January 6th in the United States was perpetrating an insurrection and then turn around and support the cancellation of the Romanian election. Apparently they think some insurrections are bad (those directed at regimes they like) and some insurrections are good (those directed at regimes they don’t like).
Think about the absurdity of Macron and Scholz and their supporters. They claim to support liberal democracy at the same time they welcome millions of immigrants from nations where the tenets of liberal democracy are foreign. I’m sure that many of those immigrants, perhaps even most, want to embrace the liberal democracy of the western nations where they made their new homes. I am also sure that many came for economic reasons and are hostile to the tenets of the liberal west. You can’t claim to love liberal democracy while welcoming millions of immigrants who hate it.
Our European allies are moving far too rapidly in a profoundly illiberal direction. They’re not Nazis, they’re not Putin and they may not even be Orban yet though the Europeans, especially Starmer, resemble him more and more. It is increasingly obvious that our “allies” no longer share as robustly as they once did, values that Americans cherish.
Superimpose on this sad reality the fact that they are weaklings happy to be utterly dependent on American protection and it becomes obvious that if they don’t take Vice President Vance’s warning to heart, it will be time for the United States to cut Europe loose.
As I said in my previous comment, mere mortals can’t resurrect a corpse. Europe is a corpse.
I realize making a comment to someone who, on the surface, appears to be a Russian troll is folly but your comment “Censorship is an anathema to liberal democracy. If you support censorship you can’t claim to support the liberal world order without looking ridiculous” this hit home. In our neck of the USA woods we are having a very concerted push for censorship in our public libraries by our Republican Party. The goal is subordination with truncation of questions or thoughts.
You seem to have a strong desire to spit in the face of people who have views that differs from your own. You are not making a reasoned case for your words.
I absolutely oppose censorship of books in public libraries. The officials who support that (primarily Republicans) are vile. As I mentioned in one of my earlier comments, the censors are always the bad guys, never the good guys. I do oppose placing books that reasonable people would construe as pornographic in elementary school libraries, but that’s a different matter.
Many of the books that Republican morons want removed from public libraries are some of the greatest works of literature. But whether the books they are trying to censor are great literature or not, insisting that they be removed is every bit as disgusting as the attempts of the now defunct Biden Administration to pressure social media companies to remove content that it found objectionable.
As for your accusation that I might be a Russian troll, you owe me an apology. Nothing that I’ve written suggests that. As a matter of fact, I find Russia and its monstrous President absolutely despicable. It would be idiotic to oppose censorship and simultaneously support anything Putin does. He (like his predecessors) is the biggest censor of them all. He doesn’t merely arrest people for publishing comments he doesn’t like, he has them tossed out of the windows of tall buildings.
Those who support arresting people for praying silently or imprisoning them for social media posts are the ones actually emulating Putin. The Russian Government has no respect for democracy; neither do western governments that support cancelling elections when it appears the “wrong” side might win.
Do you think welcoming millions of unvetted immigrants emigrating from nations with no history of pluralism and no understanding of democratic principles might just pose a threat to democracy? Do you think you have to be a Russian troll to wonder about that?
I’m new to this Substack and made a newcomer error of interjecting myself into a conversation thread. Some of your words are harsh which I’m sure are meant to be. I’m not saying that harsh wording is not deserved it’s just that they can elicit a response like mine. I greatly appreciated your comments on censorship. Couldn’t have said it better myself. Your response to Russian trolling has me completely relieved. Thanks for not tearing me apart.
Nobody can say you don't write very well, Wigwag. "If elections are cancelled because the nation’s rulers fear the wrong side is going to win, the only word for that is a coup." Not "cancelled" -- run again. Not "the nation's rulers" -- the Supreme Court. Not "the wrong side [will] win" -- a foreign power will alter the outcome. Not "a coup" but an interim defensive measure.
"...Russia used nefarious means to influence public opinion. That’s what powerful governments do." Not "nefarious means" -- criminal interference. Not "influence public opinion" -- hijack the election. And it's not "what powerful governments do," it's arguably an act of war.
Lots more here along similar lines. You're quite good at this. But it's a tactic from the Old Days which I don't believe works very well anymore.
Thank you for the very kind words about my writing. I appreciate it but I think my writing is mediocre ar best. The reason that I subscribe to this Substack is that I think that Claire’s writing is absolutely brilliant; not the content so much but the elegance of her prose. Whatever little I’ve learned about writing I gleaned from Claire’s friend and colleague, Adam Garfinkle. Adam wrote a fantastic treatise on political writing. I highly recommend it. See,
Interesting. I also subscribe here because of Claire's peerless prose style. The content is mainly not from her, though, unfortunately. And thanks for the link, I'll check it out.
I read quickly, anxious to share the all important my take. Did you mention that the U.S. blocked the G7 from declaring RU the aggressor? Clearing path for G8.
I've seen several highly respected former diplomats and pundits say in harsh terms that Trump is an unhinged child tyrant pursuing disastrous policy. Followed by, "we must get him on Ukraine's side by pursuing this clever manipulation..."
Fucking eh, pardon my French. We have no time for such stupidity. Did they not hear Vance & Trump throw-in with the AfD!? It's over. Yes it is a daunting challenge for the EU to fly a plane and build it at the same time. There's no choice. Get moving! Western states need to send a symbolic military presence to UKR now.
I would just note that the unprecedented peace and prosperity that Trump is alleged to be destroying have been dwindling away for some twenty years now. He may, perhaps, be their gravedigger, but plenty of pallbearers have have carried those corpses to the cemetery.
What, for instance, did Obama do when V. Putin swallowed up Crimea? He tut-tutted and wrung his hands. What did Biden do when Russia invaded Ukraine proper? He talked tough, then hemmed and hawed and second-guessed himself and dribbled out just enough aid to Ukraine to prolong the war. Oh, and Obama abandoned Iraq. Biden abandoned Afghanistan. And must I really get into the Biden Administration’s utterly despicable behavior over 10/7 and the Gaza War?
Trump’s responsible for what he does, going forward. But let’s not forget who set the table for the world situation he inherited: a cabal of utterly incompetent fools.
“The United States has a pretty good track record at winning wars…” (Robert Zubrin)
No we don’t. The United States hasn’t won a shooting war in 80 years. Maybe what Mr. Zubrin had in mind was our victory in extracting a hundred or so medical students from Granada or arresting Manuel Noriega in Panama. Or maybe what Mr. Zubrin has in mind is redefining the twin defeats in Iraq as successes. If he does, his opinion is a minority opinion. Most intelligent Americans understand that American policy in Iraq was a catastrophic failure engineered by two morons with the surname Bush.
Like Claire Berlinski, Mr. Zubrin fails to understand why the Pax Americana or the rules based liberal order is collapsing before our eyes. The authors of its demise are all Europeans not Americans.
It’s our European “allies” who are so pathetically weak that they can’t even measure up as bit players in sustaining the liberal world order. They expect the United States to single-handedly bear every burden and spare no expense in sustaining that order while they live the life of languid sybarites calling balls and strikes from the sidelines. Yet our European “friends” like Claire and Mr. Zubrin can’t understand why millions of Americans are fed-up with Europe.
The American Vice President was right; there is no liberal world order when key allies who are supposed to help sustain it arrest citizens for praying silently in the vicinity of abortion clinics. There is no liberal world order when those same key allies imprison citizens for tweets the government doesn’t like. Shouldn’t it be obvious that the liberal world order is fraying when European factotums cancel elections they’re afraid they might lose? Can we celebrate a liberal world order when secular societies that were once Christian look down on all religions but happily tolerate Islamic extremism and too often, Jew-hated? As the Vice President aptly stated, it hardly seems like a defense of a liberal world order when self-righteous defenders of that order welcome tens of millions of immigrants from nations that despise all of the most important facets of liberalism.
Can anyone think of a bigger joke than the idea that the European nations might come together to defend the liberal world order on their own? As the Vice President mentioned, Europe’s big three, the UK, France and Germany, are increasingly illiberal. Their illiberality is approaching that of Claire’s favorite bagaboo, Hungary; in fact, they may have surpassed it.
Even if Europe wasn’t increasingly illiberal, how are Europe’s “big” three supposed to police the liberal world order? The UK’s battleships won’t float. The French Army hightailed it out of Africa like scared little school girls. Germany is so hopeless and pathetic that it has nothing to contribute. Frau Merkel’s famous claim, “yes we can” seems like a cruel joke. A better credo for the Germans would be “no we can’t.”
In light of Europe’s increasingly illiberality and the disastrous condition of its military readiness, why shouldn’t the United States look to its own affairs? Focusing on our hemisphere seems far more likely to enhance American power that a vain attempt at resurrecting the European corpse.
"The United States hasn’t won a shooting war in 80 years." When I was briefly adjacent to a Soviet "foreign friends" group many decades ago, we were taught to do exactly this: grab some peripheral but provocative point and hammer it at length, thus distracting from the main arguments being made.
Example: we still don't know exactly how many paratroopers descended on Hostomel three years ago this morning. We don't have a precise figure. So hey, what else don't we know about that event? Maybe it never even happened!
As your boss's boss's boss once said, truth does not exit but is merely an invention of the CIA to further American hegemony. That's probably a pretty good starting point.
Succinct summary from the always trenchant keyboard of Stefan Korshak in Kiev:
"I am not making a bit of this up nor am I exaggerating. The past week saw the US foreign policy leadership:
- Blame Ukraine for starting the war with Russia
- Call President Volydymyr Zelensky “a dictator”
- Question Zelensky’s legitimacy
- Demand Ukraine ignore its constitution and hold wartime elections
- Lie about Zelensky’s popularity (Trump said 4 percent, the actual number is 50–57 percent)
- Offer Ukraine a minerals development contract so punitive in its terms, that the Versailles Treaty signed by Germany at the end of WWI was less exploitative
- Accuse Zelensky of sabotaging the peace plan because he didn’t sign a colonialist deal that would have impressed Leopold II of Belgium
- Opine that Russia could have defeated Ukraine any time it wanted to
- Refuse to condemn Russian aggression in a 3-year-invasion anniversary statement by G7 nations
- Refuse to allow language about Ukrainian territorial integrity into a UN declaration about the same thing
- Announce 40 percent cuts to Pentagon spending over the next five years with forces in Europe squarely targeted for RIF
- Declare the Republican-led Congress won’t even consider more military aid to Ukraine
- State that, really, there is no reason for Ukraine to be present at peace talks with Russia
The result of such an avalanche of thunderous foreign policy pronouncements was predictable."
https://substack.com/home/post/p-157684965
Jonathan Turley in “The Hill” explains the absurdity of illiberal Europeans, especially the British, French and Germans, claiming to revere the liberal world order while emulating the most authoritarian regimes. See,
https://thehill.com/opinion/international/5158171-trump-election-censorship-industry/
Oh yes, moral equivalence. "We execute children, true -- but you have racism!" There is no difference between laws disallowing the existence Nazi political parties and laws disallowing the existence of gays and dissidents. Russia is the same as we are; were it not for the CIA, we would all be brothers!
No, of course there is no moral equivalence. No reasonable person would suggest there is. Nevertheless the defining feature of liberalism is pluralism. Pluralism is practically defined as freedom and tolerance for different religious views. The willingness of the UK to arrest and jail citizens who are silently praying is profoundly illiberal. There have even been reports that the Scottish authorities have warned citizens with homes in an exclusion zone adjacent to abortion clinics that they can be charged with a crime if they speak negatively about abortion rights in their own homes. Obviously that’s not the same as putting people in concentration camps or throwing them in dundgeons without trial, but there is nothing liberal about it and it makes clowns of the anti religious bigots who pretend to care about the liberal world order. If Claire is offended about any of this she can say so but so far, she’s been silent on the issue. If you would like to argue that there’s nothing illiberal about arresting people for silently praying in a forbidden location, I would be curious to hear your argument.
Freedom of speech is also a cardinal principle of pluralism. Like the British and the Germans, Claire seems indifferent to freedom of speech though her ability to make a living depends on it. The British, the Germans and several other EU nations believe that the government, because its elected by a majority of its citizens, has the right to curate speech. In other words, they believe in censorship. The censors are always the bad guys, never the good guys; don’t you agree?
Censorship is an anathema to liberal democracy. If you support censorship you can’t claim to support the liberal world order without looking ridiculous.
Free elections are another fundamental facet of democracy. If elections are cancelled because the nation’s rulers fear the wrong side is going to win, the only word for that is a coup. That’s what happened in Romania. I am sure that it’s true that Russia used nefarious means to influence public opinion. That’s what powerful governments do. The United States has done the same thing on numerous occasions, including attempts to influence elections in Ukraine and Israel. Those who support cancelling elections because of the fear of what the results might be, can’t claim to support liberal democracy. Think about it; it is absurd for people (like Claire) who thought the crowd on January 6th in the United States was perpetrating an insurrection and then turn around and support the cancellation of the Romanian election. Apparently they think some insurrections are bad (those directed at regimes they like) and some insurrections are good (those directed at regimes they don’t like).
Think about the absurdity of Macron and Scholz and their supporters. They claim to support liberal democracy at the same time they welcome millions of immigrants from nations where the tenets of liberal democracy are foreign. I’m sure that many of those immigrants, perhaps even most, want to embrace the liberal democracy of the western nations where they made their new homes. I am also sure that many came for economic reasons and are hostile to the tenets of the liberal west. You can’t claim to love liberal democracy while welcoming millions of immigrants who hate it.
Our European allies are moving far too rapidly in a profoundly illiberal direction. They’re not Nazis, they’re not Putin and they may not even be Orban yet though the Europeans, especially Starmer, resemble him more and more. It is increasingly obvious that our “allies” no longer share as robustly as they once did, values that Americans cherish.
Superimpose on this sad reality the fact that they are weaklings happy to be utterly dependent on American protection and it becomes obvious that if they don’t take Vice President Vance’s warning to heart, it will be time for the United States to cut Europe loose.
As I said in my previous comment, mere mortals can’t resurrect a corpse. Europe is a corpse.
I realize making a comment to someone who, on the surface, appears to be a Russian troll is folly but your comment “Censorship is an anathema to liberal democracy. If you support censorship you can’t claim to support the liberal world order without looking ridiculous” this hit home. In our neck of the USA woods we are having a very concerted push for censorship in our public libraries by our Republican Party. The goal is subordination with truncation of questions or thoughts.
You seem to have a strong desire to spit in the face of people who have views that differs from your own. You are not making a reasoned case for your words.
I absolutely oppose censorship of books in public libraries. The officials who support that (primarily Republicans) are vile. As I mentioned in one of my earlier comments, the censors are always the bad guys, never the good guys. I do oppose placing books that reasonable people would construe as pornographic in elementary school libraries, but that’s a different matter.
Many of the books that Republican morons want removed from public libraries are some of the greatest works of literature. But whether the books they are trying to censor are great literature or not, insisting that they be removed is every bit as disgusting as the attempts of the now defunct Biden Administration to pressure social media companies to remove content that it found objectionable.
As for your accusation that I might be a Russian troll, you owe me an apology. Nothing that I’ve written suggests that. As a matter of fact, I find Russia and its monstrous President absolutely despicable. It would be idiotic to oppose censorship and simultaneously support anything Putin does. He (like his predecessors) is the biggest censor of them all. He doesn’t merely arrest people for publishing comments he doesn’t like, he has them tossed out of the windows of tall buildings.
Those who support arresting people for praying silently or imprisoning them for social media posts are the ones actually emulating Putin. The Russian Government has no respect for democracy; neither do western governments that support cancelling elections when it appears the “wrong” side might win.
Do you think welcoming millions of unvetted immigrants emigrating from nations with no history of pluralism and no understanding of democratic principles might just pose a threat to democracy? Do you think you have to be a Russian troll to wonder about that?
I’m new to this Substack and made a newcomer error of interjecting myself into a conversation thread. Some of your words are harsh which I’m sure are meant to be. I’m not saying that harsh wording is not deserved it’s just that they can elicit a response like mine. I greatly appreciated your comments on censorship. Couldn’t have said it better myself. Your response to Russian trolling has me completely relieved. Thanks for not tearing me apart.
This is one of the best sites on Substack. In fact, it may be the best. I am sure you will enjoy it here at Claire Berlinski’s site.
Nobody can say you don't write very well, Wigwag. "If elections are cancelled because the nation’s rulers fear the wrong side is going to win, the only word for that is a coup." Not "cancelled" -- run again. Not "the nation's rulers" -- the Supreme Court. Not "the wrong side [will] win" -- a foreign power will alter the outcome. Not "a coup" but an interim defensive measure.
"...Russia used nefarious means to influence public opinion. That’s what powerful governments do." Not "nefarious means" -- criminal interference. Not "influence public opinion" -- hijack the election. And it's not "what powerful governments do," it's arguably an act of war.
Lots more here along similar lines. You're quite good at this. But it's a tactic from the Old Days which I don't believe works very well anymore.
Thank you for the very kind words about my writing. I appreciate it but I think my writing is mediocre ar best. The reason that I subscribe to this Substack is that I think that Claire’s writing is absolutely brilliant; not the content so much but the elegance of her prose. Whatever little I’ve learned about writing I gleaned from Claire’s friend and colleague, Adam Garfinkle. Adam wrote a fantastic treatise on political writing. I highly recommend it. See,
https://www.amazon.com/Political-Writing-Essentials-Adam-Garfinkle/dp/0765631245
Interesting. I also subscribe here because of Claire's peerless prose style. The content is mainly not from her, though, unfortunately. And thanks for the link, I'll check it out.
I think you will enjoy the book. As Lord Byron supposedly said long before the digital age, “a drop of ink and millions think.”
I read quickly, anxious to share the all important my take. Did you mention that the U.S. blocked the G7 from declaring RU the aggressor? Clearing path for G8.
I've seen several highly respected former diplomats and pundits say in harsh terms that Trump is an unhinged child tyrant pursuing disastrous policy. Followed by, "we must get him on Ukraine's side by pursuing this clever manipulation..."
Fucking eh, pardon my French. We have no time for such stupidity. Did they not hear Vance & Trump throw-in with the AfD!? It's over. Yes it is a daunting challenge for the EU to fly a plane and build it at the same time. There's no choice. Get moving! Western states need to send a symbolic military presence to UKR now.
Ps. I meant vp Vance & president Musk on the AfD push
I would just note that the unprecedented peace and prosperity that Trump is alleged to be destroying have been dwindling away for some twenty years now. He may, perhaps, be their gravedigger, but plenty of pallbearers have have carried those corpses to the cemetery.
What, for instance, did Obama do when V. Putin swallowed up Crimea? He tut-tutted and wrung his hands. What did Biden do when Russia invaded Ukraine proper? He talked tough, then hemmed and hawed and second-guessed himself and dribbled out just enough aid to Ukraine to prolong the war. Oh, and Obama abandoned Iraq. Biden abandoned Afghanistan. And must I really get into the Biden Administration’s utterly despicable behavior over 10/7 and the Gaza War?
Trump’s responsible for what he does, going forward. But let’s not forget who set the table for the world situation he inherited: a cabal of utterly incompetent fools.
Yes, Robert and I have both been saying that for a very long time.
You have indeed.
“The United States has a pretty good track record at winning wars…” (Robert Zubrin)
No we don’t. The United States hasn’t won a shooting war in 80 years. Maybe what Mr. Zubrin had in mind was our victory in extracting a hundred or so medical students from Granada or arresting Manuel Noriega in Panama. Or maybe what Mr. Zubrin has in mind is redefining the twin defeats in Iraq as successes. If he does, his opinion is a minority opinion. Most intelligent Americans understand that American policy in Iraq was a catastrophic failure engineered by two morons with the surname Bush.
Like Claire Berlinski, Mr. Zubrin fails to understand why the Pax Americana or the rules based liberal order is collapsing before our eyes. The authors of its demise are all Europeans not Americans.
It’s our European “allies” who are so pathetically weak that they can’t even measure up as bit players in sustaining the liberal world order. They expect the United States to single-handedly bear every burden and spare no expense in sustaining that order while they live the life of languid sybarites calling balls and strikes from the sidelines. Yet our European “friends” like Claire and Mr. Zubrin can’t understand why millions of Americans are fed-up with Europe.
The American Vice President was right; there is no liberal world order when key allies who are supposed to help sustain it arrest citizens for praying silently in the vicinity of abortion clinics. There is no liberal world order when those same key allies imprison citizens for tweets the government doesn’t like. Shouldn’t it be obvious that the liberal world order is fraying when European factotums cancel elections they’re afraid they might lose? Can we celebrate a liberal world order when secular societies that were once Christian look down on all religions but happily tolerate Islamic extremism and too often, Jew-hated? As the Vice President aptly stated, it hardly seems like a defense of a liberal world order when self-righteous defenders of that order welcome tens of millions of immigrants from nations that despise all of the most important facets of liberalism.
Can anyone think of a bigger joke than the idea that the European nations might come together to defend the liberal world order on their own? As the Vice President mentioned, Europe’s big three, the UK, France and Germany, are increasingly illiberal. Their illiberality is approaching that of Claire’s favorite bagaboo, Hungary; in fact, they may have surpassed it.
Even if Europe wasn’t increasingly illiberal, how are Europe’s “big” three supposed to police the liberal world order? The UK’s battleships won’t float. The French Army hightailed it out of Africa like scared little school girls. Germany is so hopeless and pathetic that it has nothing to contribute. Frau Merkel’s famous claim, “yes we can” seems like a cruel joke. A better credo for the Germans would be “no we can’t.”
In light of Europe’s increasingly illiberality and the disastrous condition of its military readiness, why shouldn’t the United States look to its own affairs? Focusing on our hemisphere seems far more likely to enhance American power that a vain attempt at resurrecting the European corpse.
"The United States hasn’t won a shooting war in 80 years." When I was briefly adjacent to a Soviet "foreign friends" group many decades ago, we were taught to do exactly this: grab some peripheral but provocative point and hammer it at length, thus distracting from the main arguments being made.
Example: we still don't know exactly how many paratroopers descended on Hostomel three years ago this morning. We don't have a precise figure. So hey, what else don't we know about that event? Maybe it never even happened!
As your boss's boss's boss once said, truth does not exit but is merely an invention of the CIA to further American hegemony. That's probably a pretty good starting point.