In any case, it's not possible to post-facto have some sort of isolation here. Any withdrawal of American power is just its replacement by some other. Which America in turn will be enraged by, and the next round of the cycle will be explicit imposition of American power in some fashion by military means.
Because that's the only thing that will keep $$ flowing.
Why do right wing American isolationists somehow imagine they're running some sort of charity for the world that somehow Europe and others are "ungrateful" for? American military intervention exists for nakedly avaricious reasons. It is for maintaining the supremacy of American capitalism, and enriching American businessmen and to some degree some of the American people.
> Why do right wing American isolationists somehow imagine they're running some sort of charity for the world that somehow Europe and others are "ungrateful" for?
They imagine this because American interventionists routinely tell them that this is so, and American interventionists say this because it's the only politically viable justification. If you convinced everyone who believes in the fundamental goodness of US military intervention that it's really about Lockheed's profit margins, isolationism would have a bipartisan supermajority.
Yeah, calling what Trump is doing wrt Ukraine “isolationism” is like calling the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact “isolationism”.