[mieseratte]

> I don’t understand. The US has never played world police in any sort of blanket fashion.

The US has been regularly accused of playing "World Police." We literally have major studio films parodying that fact.

> But there were no promises or red lines.

Syrian chemical weapons use?

To be frank, I cannot tell if you're being needlessly obtuse in order an attempt to draw me into some sort of rhetorical noose to prove me wrong, or if you're simply ignorant of post-WWII history.

[mikeash]

Neither, I just thought you were still taking about Ukraine there, since the whole point of your comment (as I understood it) was that Ukraine was some sort of turning point.

[mieseratte]

Sorry if I was being needlessly provocative.

> that Ukraine was some sort of turning point.

I would argue that it is, that history books paint that as a turning point, of America turning away from the world stage should the trend continue.

After all, it wasn't that long ago the US (via NATO) was involving itself in peace keeping missions in Eastern Europe.

Of course this is contrasted with the rise of JSOC and drone missions (and our forever war in the Middle East), so perhaps not a full turn-away but a shift to a more muted, discrete influence? The US no longer overtly "going to bat" for "Democracy".

> I just thought you were still taking about Ukraine there, since the whole point of your comment

The point was more so that to provide a counter-point to the groby comment that the current administration marks the turning point away from the world stage, policing and protection, etc. We've arguably done that for most of this decade.