Thank you for that detailed perspective.
I wonder if NATO isn’t less benign than you briefly describe, however. It seems very much, to me, to be a bad actor in this matter.
I do not really understand NATO’s current function. It now includes what used to be East Germany, that it defended other NATO countries against, in a former life. Now, Germany supposedly defends other NATO countries using old GDR hardware that probably needs Soviet hardware to operate. NATO defense has smoothly transitioned to Russia, and apparently not China, even though Trump had easily demonstrated Europe and Russia’s interdependence as well as the international belligerence of China.
My thinking is that Mrs. Clinton used her stay in Foggy Bottom to bring NATO into the Clinton Crime Syndicate, or at least subvert it to criminal ends. The UN seems to take a back seat to the US and NATO in these matters.
I suspect you are entirely correct, the current state of both NATO and the U.S. military and state dept seem to be a mix of pro-globalist adventurism and some lingering afterglow of an earlier sanity which we took for granted in earlier decades (perhaps). I suspect that these organizations are sprinkled with less enthusiastic globalist sentiments that are held out of view for professional reasons. The trick is going to be to drain these swamps and get the saner perspective back into a more dominant leading role. I can only see that being remotely possible if a number of western countries, notably the USA, ditch their globalist governments. But even then that alone is no guarantee of change.