Die außenpolitische Apokalypse absagen

“Despite the warnings, a second Trump term may not be a riot of alliance-shattering isolationism, bellicose warmongering, or catastrophically stupid diplomacy,” Eliot A. Cohen argues: [https://theatln.tc/8QuPg98f](https://theatln.tc/8QuPg98f)

“Begin with [the Republican platform](https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/64ab29f5-f8b7-4478-97e7-7afa84727e60.pdf?itid=lk_inline_enhanced-template#toolbar=0&navpanes=0%23scrollbar=0), which is not so much binding for Trump as it is a reflection of his priorities. It starts with a celebration of 20th-century victories over Nazism and Communism, but also features a robust effort to stop illegal immigration; a commitment to military strength; a promise to reinforce American alliances, particularly, but not exclusively, in the Indo-Pacific; support for Israel; and protection of U.S. infrastructure against “malign influences of Countries that stand against us around the World.

“Setting aside the random capitalization of nouns, an illiterate twitch now pervasive in official and personal documents of all kinds, it is boilerplate, and not especially scary boilerplate at that. It has an edge, but it is not an isolationist pronunciamento.

“One of the deeper truths about American foreign policy, rejected every four years by Democrats and Republicans alike, is that it has much more continuity to it than rupture. Tariffs and supply-chain protection? The Biden administration has already gone down that path. Preoccupation with China and serious efforts to build up alliances and partnerships to contain and balance its growing power? Policies initiated in the first Trump administration have extended into the Biden years. A commitment to Israel and an interest in cementing relationships in the Persian Gulf? Same thing. A desire to disentangle ourselves from the Middle East and Afghanistan? That wish was shared by Obama, Trump I, and Biden.

“The biggest potential outlier on this list of commitments is Europe, and specifically NATO. But the Biden administration’s willingness to arm Ukraine and allow it the full exercise of the military potential that we and others have too slowly and stintingly provided has been limited. Quietly, Biden-administration officials have made clear that they are providing enough to keep Ukraine afloat but not enough to let it win in any meaningful sense of the word, and that they prefer it that way. George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan would probably have behaved very differently, but they are not in office. Trump is less dissimilar from this administration than either he or Biden would prefer to have Americans believe.”

Read more: [https://theatln.tc/8QuPg98f](https://theatln.tc/8QuPg98f)