suppose that larger forces are at work here, historical processes not easily overthrown. The revolutions of 1848 are analyzable in terms of re-arranging systems of aristocratic rule, which for the most part were Austrian dominated in Europe. What really happened was the power transform from their hegemony , by simoltenious conceptual brackeup, of the then European Union, - The Holy Roman Empire. The Napolionic wars were again such attempt at unification, so the effort was neither unique nor new.
Power shifts, territorial claims, unreasonable actions based on singular dispositions were some of the underlying fundamentals causing the shifts, and revolutions of re-distributions of power and wealth were always cumulative results.
I am no fan of extreme forms of Capitalism, but new trade practices, new rising classes, made conflict inevoidable on the continent. However, Capitalism did flow out of the new laissez faire mentality of these rising bourgeoise , and they themselves are at the brink, in their lack of control, humanism and rationality.
They are the international Capitalistic constituency.
The protection of Capital is sacrosanct and a new revolution would not be new, but a re-affirmation of thr Russian model. The reason NATO still stands, is because, the ‘communist threat’ is still alive and well in the minds of those, who lived through it in leading positions. Putin is an example of this kind of person, and some pundits say, he would like nothing better to bring back those good old days. It had been a mere generation since the ideology of communism fell, due mostly to economic and not ideological factors, and the fall was so rapid, unexpected, that the new world wide capitalism was too vested among those power brokers who control most of the world’s military, as well.
I see an implosion most likely, and that is an event that is most likely to eclipse any kind of revolution which could be garnered.
There is some good news coming out of the Trump camp, which in principle will please people who think Eropean and Asian US military presence should be financed by more regional spending on it, and it has made me see Trump in a much better light. The nations in question, relying less on US military presence, still feeling voulnerable to foreign intervention, may see the balance of power, more in terms of their ability to build up and finance their own militaries. And that is, if they really feel threatened.
However, a military threat is often a cloak for power dominance by other nations, so that, if a negative view of mankind is taken as a social-psychological trait, then nations looked at generically, will oft exhibit such traits.
Therefore for some , military organizations are still necessary as an assurance against such UN-sorted problems.
Opinion is confusingly divided, as to whether the US is still THE major power, and many believe that the next major player is China, not the US. So varied theories, and projections floating around differ as to the ability to weigh the true intentions of what some consider a fading empire.
That minus the social homogeneity in the US, descriptions of pride do manifest within the society, but not to the degree, that more homogeneous societies exhibit. Therefore jumping to the conclusion that national pride and megamalona is at the heart of US ‘imperialism’ , sounds like a communist swan song of outmoded , reactionary rhetoric.
However, within the US military circles, there too, exist the similar wish to go back to the time during the WW2 era, when pride in the military became a national Paradigmn.
My point is, that a necessary overview and analysis of power motives have become many leveled, studied by military organizations, think tanks, and academic circles associated with military funding and research and development. Oversight by congressional committees also wield the power of other, influential points of view.
It is very difficult to take a neutral position of varied views, but it is sometimes essential to remain impartial.