I agree in a sense. As far as US military expansionism - I think the overall security architecture is sound (NATO, AUSUKNZ, Four Eyes and Japan/South Korea mean

I agree in a sense. As far as US military expansionism - I think the overall security architecture is sound (NATO, AUSUKNZ, Four Eyes and Japan/South Korea means that the US effectively surrounds all of its major challengers on all sides). It’s kept US dominance in place for almost a century now. And I believe that’s a good thing. But it’s on the implementation that things went haywire. Because pre-fracking the US was so dependent on foreign energy, adventurism was encouraged in Iraq which led to a major geopolitical disaster (and a huge sink for the country’s resources). In that respect, yes the expansionist policy went totally overboard, due to poor leadership and planning and unrealistic political objectives. Overall I think: - the overall architecture is sound. The US dominates and reaps benefits for it, while in my opinion maintaining peace through strength - but Europe should be spending enormous amounts more in military power - something like 5% of GDP at least - so it has a realistic chance to defeat Russia on the battlefield on its own - if that happened then the US could probably reduce its military spending (im not even sure they would because of the issues you listed though).