Beispiel dafür sind die aktuellen Spannungen innerhalb der NATO. Die europäischen Mitgliedstaaten haben kurzfristig und möglicherweise sogar mittelfristig faktisch keine Möglichkeit, ihre Sicherheitsarchitektur von den USA zu lösen. Dies nutzen die Amerikaner derzeit, um Zugeständnisse zu erzwingen.

Ich stimme Ihrer Analyse zu. Zur Klarstellung: Ich bezog mich auf den Mangel an attraktiven Optionen, um die eigene Sicherheitsstrategie völlig unabhängig von den USA zu gestalten. Nach einer Züchtigung der USA durch China wird sich die Architektur meiner Meinung nach verschieben, aber nicht ändern.

Delian league fall and Suez crisis are not comparable. Athens was defeated by Sparta, the UK (and France) were forced to retreat under US pressure. The article is an useful academic exercise on a low probability event. It underestimates US resilience and overestimates attractive options for allies.

As a historian I do not object to looking in the rearview mirror, but the future consequences of this hagiography seems more consequential.

We are already in the midst of a ridiculous debasement trade, simply because there are no other attractive investments. Sadly, the euro is no alternative because of huge debt burdens in some countries.

The ‘we’ is a theoretical construct, not a lived reality. ‘Europe’ as a ‘we’ does not exist. It contains enemies (Russia, Belarus) and adversaries. The ‘EU’ is for now ‘just’ an economic entity with many aspirations, without important countries like the UK.

No worries. The analysis in this article concerns a completely unrealistic scenario. Threatening to close the bases hurts Europe more than it hurts the US. It is a bluff that can be called immediately.

He contrasts the “liberal” postwar order with the ‘brutal’ nineteenth century, but romanticizes it. Vietnam, Chile, Iraq, and countless other interventions show that the American order also involved coercion, coups, and mass casualties. He minimizes this with “despite its flaws and errors.”

This article is a requiem for the world order he defended throughout his career. His gloom about multipolarity reflects his ideological preference for American hegemony.

He previously wrote pleas for American military involvement (Iraq, Afghanistan). This article is a requiem for the world order he defended throughout his career. His gloom about multipolarity reflects his ideological preference for American hegemony.

Trump appears to me quite rational in that he accepts that the climate will change, but because of wealth/position he, and others, feel shielded from the negative climate effects. For wealthy individuals it is thus ‘just’ a business opportunity. Climate is a (re)distribution issue.