The second paragraph has a lot of emotional appeal, but the technical context in which it was written has massively changed. When Washington wrote this, intercontinental travel and commerce were powered by sails or horses, and the most advanced weapons were repeating guns that were cranked by hand; the most efficient printing press or workshops might have been driven by a water wheel.

Engines to power trains and ships, air travel, intercontinental missiles, satellite surveillance, instantaneous global communication, real-time video streaming, and programmatic information synthesis and distribution were unimaginable in the 18th century, but unavoidable military and economic realities in the 21st, and have great strategic importance. A nostalgic retreat into autarchy and isolation is about as realistic as erecting large statues to ward off natural disasters.

You have, without any context or explanation, quoted something which presumably states a point you are trying to make, one which seems at best a non sequitur to the parent's post if I am reading your intent correctly.

Care to use your own words to carry on the conversation rather than just stirring the pot with a seemingly unrelated and controversial opinion stated via someone else's words?

I think not getting too enmeshed in their politics is still generally a good idea though I doubt that George Washington of all people would be unsympathetic towards people fighting for their own independence and liberty against a foreign power looking to strip them of those rights

Since context is important the speech also references the Neutrality proclamation of 1793 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_of_Neutrality). I would say the stuff on European policy needs to be viewed through the lens of the wars there at the time (which I think are these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_First_Coalition)

When Washington was giving this speech, France, the key benefactor to the infant United States, was in the middle of a pretty nasty revolution and probably really wanted some repayment for their help. So the context here might also be relevant, the US was basically saying "Uhh...yeah, as a matter of principle we really shouldn't get involved with whatever crazy stuff Europe is up to!"

So I think the context matters a lot, and I agree if Washington were alive today (and somehow able to function with the grievous age-related illnesses he'd be suffering) he'd generally support the established transatlantic alliance.

Washington was aligned with the Federalists, who were roughly speaking pro-British and anti-French. The antifederalists took the opposite tack.

You can see what the anti-federalists thought of this generally; Paine’s open letter to Washington airing some of the grievances is an interesting read.

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-20-02-...

He also let Thomas Paine rot in a French prison.

> So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith.

A key part.

Sure was a simpler time. Now we have Russia pointing nuclear weapons at all our major population centers, and the engagements we have with a number of our allies against this nation are not being fulfilled, in bad faith.

Yet the USA was the only country to drop atomic weapons on civilian populations. If country X didn't have nukes & wanted to remain sovereign, the USA + global banking cartel would impose a regime change. It would be better if relations were better. But that would require acting in good faith...which hasn't been the case. Most people want peace & for the various powers to act in good faith...as most people don't benefit from war, sanctions, tariffs, excessive taxation, & the multitude of other statutes that benefit centralized power, bureaucracy, oligopoly, & middle-men imposing rent.

All of this requires well-defined & consistent application of ethics. However, the language of ethics has been tortured to justify coercion & self-serving interests. The simulacra of morality is merely cover for will to power impulses.

Nonetheless, I believe that most people want fairness & morality. However, most people also face a dilemma at times. Sacrifice on the hill of Principles or gain something such as a home, food, wealth, ownership, control over something. If people choose Principles, then they may lose opportunities. If they choose to accumulate wealth in conflict with Principles, then the society rots, one selfish action at a time. Unfortunately, the social rules are often set up to create this conflict. And the simulacra of morality is a tempting panacea to have the "best of both worlds". Or one can do the hard work to choose a better set of Principles to take care of their needs & create peace & prosperity for most if not all.

> Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or very remote relation.

Right, but the implication he makes is now vacuous, as the precondition of ‘remote relation’ was no longer true once the world became ‘smaller’ through improvements in transportation, logistics, and communication.