> It's not a representative democracy. It's a winner-takes-all one. In US the executive is one single individual representing only those who voted him. Sometimes it's even a minority vote like in Trump #1.

The US is literally a representative democracy as a matter of fact and definition. Winner-take-all in contested elections does not make the US not a representative democracy.

> And no, the US is clearly not stable on foreign politics

No country is then.

> It's a decision that's been made in Washington to revert decades of successful cooperation. We're merely reacting to the reality.

Ok then we should just do whatever we want and who cares about alliances or whatever. Withdraw troops, normalize trade relations with Russia, take over Greenland, whatever. All the decades of successful cooperation are nearby reverted and so we can now take different actions with that in mind.

> That's not how you build stable relations, trust and business.

In that case any time a country or bloc takers abruptly actions they now no longer are building stable relations, trust, and business. For example if the EU takes an abrupt action we can make this same claim.

> Also, I really don't agree with your view of the "acting slowly".

What is my view that you disagree with?

> We don't need big changes, but small compounding ones.

Maybe. Sometimes you need big changes. Like climate change. We need to make big changes (at least in my view) to address it because small changes won’t save us in time.