Mr. Brinkbäumer of Der Spiegel is absolutely correct: "The international community" needs to "free itself of its dependence on the U.S...it is...necessary-and possible."-Der Spiegel Editorial, May 19, 2017

"The proper attitude to any alliance is to keep a tight focus on the business for which it exists, while being ready to dissolve it without illusion or sentiment, never mind rancor, as situations change... Europeans were becoming mere consumers of American provided security." Nov. 17, 2014, "Would George Washington Mourn NATO?" Angelo M. Codevilla

......................

5/19/17, "It's Time to Get Rid of Donald Trump," A Der Spiegel Editorial by Klaus Brinkbäumer 

"Donald Trump has transformed the United States into a laughing stock and he is a danger to the world. He must be removed from the White House before things get even worse."...

(subhead) "Witnessing an American Tragedy"...

"There are five theoretical solutions.... 

Fifth: the international community wakes up and finds a way to circumvent the White House and free itself of its dependence on the U.S. Unlike the preceding four options, the fifth doesn't directly solve the Trump problem, but it is nevertheless necessary - and possible."...

................

Comment: Absolutely correct, Mr. Brinkbäumer: "The international community" needs to "free itself of its dependence on the U.S....it is...necessary-and possible."...

This dependency was caused by the US political class which in succeeding generations has never liked average Americans, was happy to hand out US taxpayer dollars like candy all over the world, has even been happy to "volunteer" American lives and limbs to fight and die in endless foreign wars. What has changed is Americans understand they can no longer bear this burden, nor should anyone. Time will tell if Trump himself retains this belief and acts accordingly. 

Why is Germany or Europe only now thinking it's not a good idea to be dependent on struggling US taxpayers? Considering how dangerous Germany and Europe are today, how in the world does anyone at Der Spiegel have the spare time to be obsessed about a country across the Atlantic Ocean that as a result of being sold out to the bare walls by its political class, is beginning to see that serious problems exist in what remains of the United States?
 
Mr. Brinkbäumer, you mention "experts and politicians focused on foreign policy" are in agony. This is their own fault. They chose to make a living as a parasite on the American people. They assumed they'd be part of  a permanent political class--no matter who won elections, they'd still be in business. These people have done very well for several decades. What you only now perceive as a change in the US had been building among US voters for at least 15 years. We realized the entire US political class sold out our country to the bare walls and couldn't care less what we thought about it. Elections became meaningless--2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2014--came and went and nothing changed. Voters no longer had the ability to effect change in the country:

"So long as the Uniparty exists, mere voters will have no way of affecting what the government does." 12/15/2013, "Breaking The UniParty," Angelo Codevilla,

Put another way, the US had been converted to a soft dictatorship without voter approval. In 2016, they planned to outsmart us again, whether flooding the field with ridiculous candidates funded by fat cats, or relying on "super delegates" to tip the scale for the corporate candidate. We had two choices. We could accept that we were now slaves, or we could vote for Donald Trump. Mr. Brinkbäumer, what would you have done given that choice? Your article makes no mention of 62,984,825 Trump voters nor what led them to their 2016 vote. Some consider Trump's beating the vicious Republican Establishment an even bigger achievement than beating the Democrat to win the presidency:

"Trump utterly gutted the GOP in the primaries. That was the real landslide of 2016." CNBC, 1/3/2017
...................

Above, banner on NY Times Editorial page, posted Tuesday evening May 3, 2016 for Wed., May 4, 2016 print edition 

Even the NY Times Editorial Board saw that the 2016 Republican voters' message "is testimony to how thoroughly they reject the Republican politicians who betrayed them."... May 3, 2016, By The NY Times Editorial Board  
 
In my lifetime, the GOP Establishment has been about one thing: preventing Republican voters from getting the candidate they needed. The GOP E has exactly the same agenda as the Democrats, and they didn't want a real second party emerging to mess up their gold mine:

"He (Trump) managed to prevail—to mount the most astonishingly successful insurgent campaign against a party establishment in our lifetimes....He won the GOP’s untapped residue of nationalist voters, in a system where the elites of both parties are, as if by rote, extreme globalists. He won the support of those who favored changing trade and immigration policies, which, it is increasingly obvious, do not favor the tangible interests of the average American....

The core of Trump’s supporters are the political descendants of what had been the backbone of the Democratic New Deal coalition: working-class whites, politically strongest in the South and flyover states. On the triad of trade, immigration, and foreign policy these voters are nationalist, not globalist—they would limit America’s intervention in foreign conflicts
and subject the importation of products and people from the rest of the world to a more rigorous is-it-good-for-us test. (And by “us” they mean themselves, not the Fortune 500.) By nominating Trump, the Republican Party has finally been forced to come to terms with these sentiments, choosing a candidate who is largely disdainful of the globalist consensus of GOP donors, pundits, and think-tank experts. For Trump and his voters, the “Reaganite” basket of so-called “conservative” issues—free trade, high immigration, tax cuts for those with high incomes and entitlement cuts for the middle class—was irrelevant or actually undesirable.... 

He won the backing of those alarmed by a new surge of political correctness, an informal national speech code that seeks to render many legitimate political opinions unsayable. He won the support of white working-class voters whose social and economic position had been declining for a generation."...6/27/16, "Why Trump Wins," "He knows border wars have replaced culture wars." The American Conservative, by Scott McConnell 

Mr. Brinkbäumer, the one-party system may be comforting to you and your friends in the global "security" industry, but it's not to us. We're not going back to being global slaves. We understand Trump is now a politician and won't deliver on all his promises. The nearly 63 million of us who desperately wanted Trump to win are here reminding him of his promises and letting him know how we feel when he forgets about them.  

Mr. Brinkbäumer, assuming you didn't vote in the 2016 US election and weren't qualified to do so, how do you now envision going over the heads of  63 million American voters and removing our elected representative? Have you looked around at the living hell Europe has become? It's pompous attitudes of people like you that caused the election of Donald Trump.

Quote referenced above:

"Not quite two weeks ago, a number of experts and politicians focused on foreign policy met in Washington at the invitation of the Munich Security Conference. It wasn't difficult to sense the atmosphere of chaos and agony that has descended upon the city."

.......................

Added: Removing sentimentality from NATO:

"The proper attitude to any alliance is to keep a tight focus on the business for which it exists, while being ready to dissolve it without illusion or sentiment, never mind rancor, as situations change... Europeans were becoming mere consumers of American provided security."

Nov. 17, 2014, "Would George Washington Mourn NATO?" Angelo M. Codevilla

Celebrating the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as the cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy was an obligatory ritual for two generations of American statesmen. As the decades passed however, mention of it and of “our European allies” has come with decreasing conviction and increasing embarrassment. Few dispute that, today, the alliance’s formalities are a pretense likelier to get its members into trouble than to pull anyone out of it. Civilizational changes have emptied it of substance. Readjusting American strategy to take account of those changes makes far more sense than talking about “revitalizing” or “rebuilding” an alliance on bases that no longer exist.
American statesmen who treated NATO as something of an end in itself erected it into a totem. They would have done well to recall George Washington’s common sense teaching about alliances, namely that, by nature, they are expedients for particular purposes in particular situations. This means that the proper attitude to any alliance is to keep a tight focus on the business for which it exists, while being ready to dissolve it without illusion or sentiment, never mind rancor, as situations change.
- See more at: http://www.libertylawsite.org/2014/11/17/would-george-washington-mourn-nato/#sthash.KHcnZQz9.dpuf

Would George Washington Mourn NATO?

 ....



..............