Moving Toward To A New US Foreign Policy Focus

mark46 · Jan 13, 2026

The US has been trying to move away from a Europe and Middle East focused foreign policy since the beginning of the century. This isn't new for Trump. And yes, there are those who strongly believe that US should wring out every last benefit from the post World War II economy that they created and that benefitted us so much.
==================
After 25 years more, it is truly time for the US to move on. We should have done so in 2003, a couple of months into the Iraq War BEFORE we headed to Baghdad wanting to change the government of yet another country and try to make them accept US style democracy. This is a failed policy. The US should be the shining light on the hill, but not the country forcing others to accept our system.

Trump wants out of being the one that runs the world. He wants the US in a greatly reduced role at the UN, NATO, and as a provider of foreign aid. He does eant to be a very rich man.
==========
TRUMP CAMPAIGNED ON NO MORE FOREVER WARS
1) He has so far failed to end the war in Ukraine.
2) He has succeeded in the Abraham Accords and in securing a cease fire, and in greatly reducing Middle East terrorism.
3) Through many threats, trump has helped to stop or shorten many conflicts.
4) He is doing what he can regarding China, no better or worse than most
5) and now, Trump is turning to focus on the Americas.
6) and of course making lots and lots of deals that benefit the US, his family and his friends
====================
WILL THE NEXT COUPLE OF PRESIDENTS MOVE BACK TO THE OLD SYSTEMS?
I suspect not. Europe is much more self-reliant as is the Middle East. We need to move on. After all, it's been over 100 years.

We will probably clean up a bit, reducing Russia's influence in the Americas even more. We will develop an immigration policy that makes sense. And, yes, we will develop CLOSER ties with Canada and Mexico.

Other than that, the focus for the next decade or so will be internal, dealing with our many crises and especially the job situation created by AI and greater automation.

MarcusGregor · Jan 14, 2026

The damage this administration has done and is continuing to do to our foreign relations will take decades to repair. That's assuming we actually make it through this as a country intact.

Maria Billingsley · Jan 14, 2026

mark46 said:
Trump wants out of being the one that runs the world. He wants the US in a greatly reduced role at the UN, NATO, and as a provider of foreign aid. He does want to be a very rich man.

I am wondering if you keep up with this administration’s agenda? One thing I agree with , he does want to be very rich. The sentiment " This is our hemisphere " and that he will personally be in control of oil revenues from Venezuela for sure tells us that. But you are missing the bigger picture here. Follow the money. Follow the power. His " parallel system " in our government has just taken hold.
Thanks for sharing.

iluvatar5150 · Jan 14, 2026

mark46 said:
The US has been trying to move away from a Europe and Middle East focused foreign policy since the beginning of the century. This isn't new for Trump. And yes, there are those who strongly believe that US should wring out every last benefit from the post World War II economy that they created and that benefitted us so much.
==================
After 25 years more, it is truly time for the US to move on. We should have done so in 2003, a couple of months into the Iraq War BEFORE we headed to Baghdad wanting to change the government of yet another country and try to make them accept US style democracy. This is a failed policy. The US should be the shining light on the hill, but not the country forcing others to accept our system.

Trump wants out of being the one that runs the world. He wants the US in a greatly reduced role at the UN, NATO, and as a provider of foreign aid. He does eant to be a very rich man.
==========
TRUMP CAMPAIGNED ON NO MORE FOREVER WARS
1) He has so far failed to end the war in Ukraine.
2) He has succeeded in the Abraham Accords and in securing a cease fire, and in greatly reducing Middle East terrorism.
3) Through many threats, trump has helped to stop or shorten many conflicts.
4) He is doing what he can regarding China, no better or worse than most

Have you not been paying attention for the last six months?

Not only has he failed to end the war in Ukraine, he's starting a new one in Venezuela and threatening others.

The Abraham Accords were signed during his first term. His diplomatic successes have all been low-hanging fruit: low-grade tensions among small players who can be easily pushed around or bought off. Those are good things, but they're often oversold by his fans.

Trump may be "doing what he can regarding China," but that's only because his limited faculties prevent him from concieving of anything less hamfisted than tariffs and flattery. Obama had the TPP and Biden had the CHIPS act. Trump pulled out of the TPP (which was putting pressure on China) and slammed the CHIPS act in public, though I'm unclear on what substantive changes he's actually made to it.

mark46 said:
5) and now, Trump is turning to focus on the Americas.

Sure, if you're including Central and South America.

That Guy 11200 · Jan 14, 2026

Why is Trump promising "very strong action" against Iran if he is only going to be focusing on the Americas?

mark46 · Jan 14, 2026

That Guy 11200 said:
Why is Trump promising "very strong action" against Iran if he is only going to be focusing on the Americas?

The mullahs and their security forces in Iran remains an existential threat to our Sunni allies and to Israel.
==========
But let's be clear, Trump is NOT isolationist. He has militarily and diplomatically interfered all throughout the world, most recently in Nigeria, the most important country in Africa is so many ways.

FAITH-IN-HIM · Jan 14, 2026

mark46 said:
The US has been trying to move away from a Europe and Middle East focused foreign policy since the beginning of the century. This isn't new for Trump. And yes, there are those who strongly believe that US should wring out every last benefit from the post World War II economy that they created and that benefitted us so much.
==================
After 25 years more, it is truly time for the US to move on. We should have done so in 2003, a couple of months into the Iraq War BEFORE we headed to Baghdad wanting to change the government of yet another country and try to make them accept US style democracy. This is a failed policy. The US should be the shining light on the hill, but not the country forcing others to accept our system.

Trump wants out of being the one that runs the world. He wants the US in a greatly reduced role at the UN, NATO, and as a provider of foreign aid. He does eant to be a very rich man.
==========
TRUMP CAMPAIGNED ON NO MORE FOREVER WARS
1) He has so far failed to end the war in Ukraine.
2) He has succeeded in the Abraham Accords and in securing a cease fire, and in greatly reducing Middle East terrorism.
3) Through many threats, trump has helped to stop or shorten many conflicts.
4) He is doing what he can regarding China, no better or worse than most
5) and now, Trump is turning to focus on the Americas.
6) and of course making lots and lots of deals that benefit the US, his family and his friends
====================
WILL THE NEXT COUPLE OF PRESIDENTS MOVE BACK TO THE OLD SYSTEMS?
I suspect not. Europe is much more self-reliant as is the Middle East. We need to move on. After all, it's been over 100 years.

We will probably clean up a bit, reducing Russia's influence in the Americas even more. We will develop an immigration policy that makes sense. And, yes, we will develop CLOSER ties with Canada and Mexico.

Other than that, the focus for the next decade or so will be internal, dealing with our many crises and especially the job situation created by AI and greater automation.

As an old-school conservative who supports the US alliance with NATO and NATO Plus unconditionally, I wish we could restore our relationship with these organizations, but I doubt that will happen. Europe and NATO Plus members have finally realized that they cannot rely on the US, so they are seeking new alliances that exclude America. In particular, Europe is aiming to secure its national security independently of the United States.

mark46 · Jan 14, 2026

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
As an old-school conservative who supports the US alliance with NATO and NATO Plus unconditionally, I wish we could restore our relationship with these organizations, but I doubt that will happen. Europe and NATO Plus members have finally realized that they cannot rely on the US, so they are seeking new alliances that exclude America. In particular, Europe is aiming to secure its national security independently of the United States.

Why is an independent Europe a bad thing?

Why is it good for Europe or us for Europe to be so dependent on the US and on US leadership?
========
I have supported the US approach for many, many decades. However, it is time to move on.
=========
We need to repair our relationship with Canada, and to continue to extend our 3-country trade agreement with Canada and Mexico.

And yes, reducing Russian influence in the Americas and the Arctic is a better focus for the US. We need to be a strong partner and leader to those in our own hemisphere.
========
ELSEWHERE
We can certainly help when we can and when we are asked, both diplomatically and militarily. That has happened a lot under Trump, most recently in Nigeria.

FAITH-IN-HIM · Jan 14, 2026

mark46 said:
Why is an independent Europe a bad thing?

Why is it good for Europe or us for Europe to be so dependent on the US and on US leadership?
========
I have supported the US approach for many, many decades. However, it is time to move on.
=========
We need to repair our relationship with Canada, and to continue to extend our 3-country trade agreement with Canada and Mexico.

And yes, reducing Russian influence in the Americas and the Arctic is a better focus for the US. We need to be a strong partner and leader to those in our own hemisphere.
========
ELSEWHERE
We can certainly help when we can and when we are asked, both diplomatically and militarily. That has happened a lot under Trump, most recently in Nigeria.

Following World War II, U.S. foreign policy aimed to persuade European nations to depend on the United States for their security. The U.S. sought to prevent the rise of another powerful country like Germany in Europe. Instead of encouraging Europeans to participate in an arms race or build up extensive military forces, America urged them to rely on U.S. protection.

As a result, the United States spent significant resources on its own security as well as on the defense of NATO countries. This strategy has been effective for both Europe and the U.S. over the past 70 years. By not having to worry about threats from other European countries, the U.S. could concentrate on countering the USSR and other global powers outside Europe.
As a conservative who has strongly supported the last seventy years of foreign policy shaped by the "leader of the Free World" doctrine—established from FDR through to George W. Bush—I believe America's status as a superpower and as leader of the free world will significantly diminish within 15 years. While the United States will remain the world's most powerful nation, its influence across the globe is likely to decrease.

American strength as a superpower has not always depended solely on military might, but also on the vast alliances cultivated since the end of World War II. The Trump doctrine has encouraged our closest allies—Europe, NATO, and NATO Plus countries—to take greater responsibility for their own defense capabilities. Today, Canada is increasing its defense spending to become less reliant on the U.S., and Europe is similarly investing billions, with plans to continue doing so until they no longer depend on American support for security. Likewise, NATO Plus countries such as Australia, Japan, and South Korea are expected to follow suit, building stronger partnerships with Europe and other NATO Plus nations while decreasing their reliance on the United States.

The MAGA ideology suggests that the less Europe and NATO rely on the US, the more financial resources America has for itself. While this may be accurate, it's equally true that reduced reliance by Europe and the NATO alliance on the USA also means diminished influence over them.

I don't think NATO or NATO Plus countries will form stronger alliances with Russia or China; instead, they are likely to build closer ties among themselves, independent of the US. While they won't antagonize the US, they may be less concerned with America's stance on global issues.

Ultimately, it is possible that the situation may resemble the Monroe Doctrine as envisioned by President Trump, with the United States remaining the most powerful and dominant country in the Americas. However, other regions may increasingly look to Europe for leadership. While I do not anticipate this shift occurring within the next five to seven years, it is plausible that global leadership could transition toward Europe rather than America over the next fifteen years.

mark46 · Jan 14, 2026

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
Following World War II, U.S. foreign policy aimed to persuade European nations to depend on the United States for their security. The U.S. sought to prevent the rise of another powerful country like Germany in Europe. Instead of encouraging Europeans to participate in an arms race or build up extensive military forces, America urged them to rely on U.S. protection.

As a result, the United States spent significant resources on its own security as well as on the defense of NATO countries. This strategy has been effective for both Europe and the U.S. over the past 70 years. By not having to worry about threats from other European countries, the U.S. could concentrate on countering the USSR and other global powers outside Europe.
As a conservative who has strongly supported the last seventy years of foreign policy shaped by the "leader of the Free World" doctrine—established from FDR through to George W. Bush—I believe America's status as a superpower and as leader of the free world will significantly diminish within 15 years. While the United States will remain the world's most powerful nation, its influence across the globe is likely to decrease.

American strength as a superpower has not always depended solely on military might, but also on the vast alliances cultivated since the end of World War II. The Trump doctrine has encouraged our closest allies—Europe, NATO, and NATO Plus countries—to take greater responsibility for their own defense capabilities. Today, Canada is increasing its defense spending to become less reliant on the U.S., and Europe is similarly investing billions, with plans to continue doing so until they no longer depend on American support for security. Likewise, NATO Plus countries such as Australia, Japan, and South Korea are expected to follow suit, building stronger partnerships with Europe and other NATO Plus nations while decreasing their reliance on the United States.

The MAGA ideology suggests that the less Europe and NATO rely on the US, the more financial resources America has for itself. While this may be accurate, it's equally true that reduced reliance by Europe and the NATO alliance on the USA also means diminished influence over them.

I don't think NATO or NATO Plus countries will form stronger alliances with Russia or China; instead, they are likely to build closer ties among themselves, independent of the US. While they won't antagonize the US, they may be less concerned with America's stance on global issues.

Ultimately, it is possible that the situation may resemble the Monroe Doctrine as envisioned by President Trump, with the United States remaining the most powerful and dominant country in the Americas. However, other regions may increasingly look to Europe for leadership. While I do not anticipate this shift occurring within the next five to seven years, it is plausible that global leadership could transition toward Europe rather than America over the next fifteen years.

I am fine with your analysis of all the trends that you describe.

I would note that Europe is already less interested in the US positions on global issues. This is the case with regard to Israel, climate change, the UN, tariffs and strategies regarding China.
==================
There is an opportunity for development in both the Americas and in Africa. Thise aren't really areas where Europeans can be influential.
=================================
For example, the US is giving military aid to the Nigerian government, the most populated and the largest economy in Africa. Nigeria is likely to be a major economic power in the next quarter of a century. Other African countries need military aid and advice if they are to be able to stay in power while holding back the various Muslim and local terrorist groups. US-led charities run by Gates, the Carters, the Clintons, various churches and others will continue to lead the way with regard to health care aid. Here British and French agencies are also leading the way. This no longer is really much of a role for governments, although some efforts to start projects are very useful (like Bush's HIV project recently scuttled by Trump).
=======
In the Americas, Trump is already making friends with certain regimes and considers that Russian allies as enemies. At very least, he will try to start efforts of keeping these countries from supporting terrorism, trafficking and trading with sanctioned countries. We should be willing to accept left-leaning countries as long as they are not allied with Russia. While this is difficult for Trump, Venezuela is a good start.
=======
The obvious failure is his unwillingness to consider Canada an ally. This nonsense really needs to stop.

FAITH-IN-HIM · Jan 15, 2026

mark46 said:
I am fine with your analysis of all the trends that you describe.

I would note that Europe is already less interested in the US positions on global issues. This is the case with regard to Israel, climate change, the UN, tariffs and strategies regarding China.
==================
There is an opportunity for development in both the Americas and in Africa. Thise aren't really areas where Europeans can be influential.
=================================
For example, the US is giving military aid to the Nigerian government, the most populated and the largest economy in Africa. Nigeria is likely to be a major economic power in the next quarter of a century. Other African countries need military aid and advice if they are to be able to stay in power while holding back the various Muslim and local terrorist groups. US-led charities run by Gates, the Carters, the Clintons, various churches and others will continue to lead the way with regard to health care aid. Here British and French agencies are also leading the way. This no longer is really much of a role for governments, although some efforts to start projects are very useful (like Bush's HIV project recently scuttled by Trump).
=======
In the Americas, Trump is already making friends with certain regimes and considers that Russian allies as enemies. At very least, he will try to start efforts of keeping these countries from supporting terrorism, trafficking and trading with sanctioned countries. We should be willing to accept left-leaning countries as long as they are not allied with Russia. While this is difficult for Trump, Venezuela is a good start.
=======
The obvious failure is his unwillingness to consider Canada an ally. This nonsense really needs to stop.

All your points about US involvement in Africa highlight its positive aspects—at present, these initiatives are largely humanitarian. However, with time, they could evolve into a strategic partnership that shapes global affairs. Still, replacing Europe with Africa as a primary ally may be at least 150 years in the future.
There are notable differences between the United States and African nations in terms of culture and attitudes toward government. Africa has 54 countries, with fewer than 2% classified as full democracies. For example, Nigeria is not considered a full democracy by any international organization; at best, it is regarded as a partial democracy. It takes two or three generations to develop democracy, so Africa may require another 75 years to become mostly democratic.
On the other hand, European nations are much closer in culture, mindset, form of government, and economic standards. Although Europeans may hold different views on climate change, Middle East policy, or the United Nations, these differences are far less distinct than the mutual understanding of the US shares with Europe.
There have been setbacks between Europe and the U.S. over the past decade, which may persist until the end of the Trump administration. I hope that after 2028, both sides will work to restore relations. The EU-USA and NATO alliance remains one of the most successful and powerful in history.
The United States will not find another alliance like the one it has with Europe, and likewise, Europe will not find a partner as dependable as the US. Unfortunately, this relationship has been damaged and is unlikely to be repaired in the near future.

mark46 · Jan 15, 2026

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
All your points about US involvement in Africa highlight its positive aspects—at present, these initiatives are largely humanitarian. However, with time, they could evolve into a strategic partnership that shapes global affairs. Still, replacing Europe with Africa as a primary ally may be at least 150 years in the future.
There are notable differences between the United States and African nations in terms of culture and attitudes toward government. Africa has 54 countries, with fewer than 2% classified as full democracies. For example, Nigeria is not considered a full democracy by any international organization; at best, it is regarded as a partial democracy. It takes two or three generations to develop democracy, so Africa may require another 75 years to become mostly democratic.
On the other hand, European nations are much closer in culture, mindset, form of government, and economic standards. Although Europeans may hold different views on climate change, Middle East policy, or the United Nations, these differences are far less distinct than the mutual understanding of the US shares with Europe.
There have been setbacks between Europe and the U.S. over the past decade, which may persist until the end of the Trump administration. I hope that after 2028, both sides will work to restore relations. The EU-USA and NATO alliance remains one of the most successful and powerful in history.
The United States will not find another alliance like the one it has with Europe, and likewise, Europe will not find a partner as dependable as the US. Unfortunately, this relationship has been damaged and is unlikely to be repaired in the near future.

I agree that the US will not find another alliance as it has had with Europe with its like-minded democracies.

We are one of the powers of the next century, along with Europe, China and Russia (as a minor player). Perhaps, another power will develop in Asia, perhaps not.

I think that it is time to focus on the Americas at least for a couple of decades. I do think that it is the interest of the US to continue to have the UK and perhaps other individual countries as allies, but not as before.

With regard to Africa, all the global powers want allies there. I don't see it as a world power unto itself for a very long time. However, I think it to be in the interest of the US to help Africa defeat its terrorists.
=========
You mention democracies. I think that the major mistake of the US over the past 50 years has been to focus on the internal choices peoples make with regard to their own governments. We have, and should have, allies who don't follow our lead regarding how to govern.

We should not make the mistake again of not wanting to deal with local heroes like Ho Chi Minh. We will not make Saudi Arabia and the sheiks pariahs because they are not democracies. Of course, we should be the example, but that is a different concept.

FAITH-IN-HIM · Jan 15, 2026

mark46 said:
I agree that the US will not find another alliance as it has had with Europe with its like-minded democracies.

We are one of the powers of the next century, along with Europe, China and Russia (as a minor player). Perhaps, another power will develop in Asia, perhaps not.

I think that it is time to focus on the Americas at least for a couple of decades. I do think that it is the interest of the US to continue to have the UK and perhaps other individual countries as allies, but not as before.

With regard to Africa, all the global powers want allies there. I don't see it as a world power unto itself for a very long time. However, I think it to be in the interest of the US to help Africa defeat its terrorists.
=========
You mention democracies. I think that the major mistake of the US over the past 50 years has been to focus on the internal choices peoples make with regard to their own governments. We have, and should have, allies who don't follow our lead regarding how to govern.

We should not make the mistake again of not wanting to deal with local heroes like Ho Chi Minh. We will not make Saudi Arabia and the sheiks pariahs because they are not democracies. Of course, we should be the example, but that is a different concept.

This is certainly an interesting discussion. However, before we determine whether to maintain our current alliances such as NATO and NATO Plus, or to shift our focus to the Americas and subsequently Africa, it is essential first to establish whether there is consensus within our country, or at least among the majority. While internal debates on foreign policy have always existed, the core principle of maintaining alliances with Europe and other democracies has never been in question.

Today, almost half of Americans no longer view the United States as the "Leader of the Free World," but rather as a powerful nation with few allies that primarily focuses on domestic affairs or relationships with select countries in Americas that have a direct impact on American daily life.
The other half of the country, including myself, is more divided. As a traditional conservative, I would like to see Western liberal democracy and the NATO alliance—the strongest partnership in our civilization—endure. Meanwhile, liberals and libertarians advocate for a completely isolationist policy. On the other hand, you prefer engagement and building relationships with authoritarian regimes that oppress their own citizens.

Until our nation agrees on what kind of country we want America to become, discussing foreign policy remains pointless.

I want the USA to be the Beacon of Hope, The Shining City on the Hill, and the Leader of the Free World, just as Ronald Reagan envisioned America.

mark46 · Jan 15, 2026

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
This is certainly an interesting discussion. However, before we determine whether to maintain our current alliances such as NATO and NATO Plus, or to shift our focus to the Americas and subsequently Africa, it is essential first to establish whether there is consensus within our country, or at least among the majority. While internal debates on foreign policy have always existed, the core principle of maintaining alliances with Europe and other democracies has never been in question.

Today, almost half of Americans no longer view the United States as the "Leader of the Free World," but rather as a powerful nation with few allies that primarily focuses on domestic affairs or relationships with select countries in Americas that have a direct impact on American daily life.
The other half of the country, including myself, is more divided. As a traditional conservative, I would like to see Western liberal democracy and the NATO alliance—the strongest partnership in our civilization—endure. Meanwhile, liberals and libertarians advocate for a completely isolationist policy. On the other hand, you prefer engagement and building relationships with authoritarian regimes that oppress their own citizens.

Until our nation agrees on what kind of country we want America to become, discussing foreign policy remains pointless.

I want the USA to be the Beacon of Hope, The Shining City on the Hill, and the Leader of the Free World, just as Ronald Reagan envisioned America.

To be clear, we need not end our close relationships with Europe. I just think that it is time to allow Europe to be their own world power, without our strong leadership position in their affairs.

Certainly, I expect UK to be our close allies for the foreseeable future.

I suspect that Ukraine is a good example. This should really be primarily a European issue. And, yes, we should sell them any weapons that they desire to buy. But decision-making should be theirs.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Moving Toward To A New US Foreign Policy Focus

Well-Known Member

New year, new you...

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads