No matter his motives for being so clear about this now and not earlier, his overall views concerning the duties of political leaders in a country in the present world are correct. The importance of these duties has been recognized by leaders in all successful nations in world history unless there were only negligible opposing nations.
Political leadership serves different purposes. Obviously it satisfies the egos of leaders enjoying power. But it also makes nations function internally, not least politically and economically. And importantly, leadership secures the position of the country in the society of nations and ultimately the whole existence of the country. This last point is of paramount importance and should never become subordinate to the personal ambitions of the leader.
In our present era this becomes even more important. Through parts of the history of civilizations and this even before modernities, the number of truly independent countries is typically falling. Stronger countries dominate or swallow weaker ones. Through the later parts of modernities the field of independent nations is reduced even further until we in the end-phase have only a few. Of these one may finally unite the civilization.
We are now approaching this end-phase. Therefore very much is at stake. Time is running out for smaller countries. These can choose (1) to voluntarily unite with other countries in order to obtain better protection against being subjugated. Or they can choose (2) ridiculous nationalism not founded in any real strength and then as a result involuntarily become subjugated under a bigger power. The minimum size of truly independent countries is rising as we move through time. At the present stage even the UK has become too small for real independence. Its leaders have taken the second of the two choices. If you take this choice your only freedom is that in some cases you can choose under whom you want to submit your independence. But there are limits to the freedom of this choice depending on size and geo-strategic importance. To take an example, an independent country of 60000 inhabitants in the North Atlantic is an absurd thought.
Thus by now for small and medium sized countries the duty of leaders to care for the position of their country in the world concerns the existence. For the biggest powers the question about the duties of leaders is not yet existential. But as reflected in the views of John Bolton and a handful of other Republicans and some Democrats and indeed leading circles in Beijing and Moscow, this question still has immense importance. The big powers do not only have the wish to exist. They also have the will to power, not necessarily to subjugate the whole world, but to take and dominate a large share of the globe before too big parts have been taken by the competitors.
Seen apart from the possible removal of grotesquely bad regimes this trend towards centralization of power in fewer and fewer big countries at the cost of the independence of smaller ones is repugnant. But as long as we are under this childish logic of power it is how the world functions whether we like it or not.
Thus if a big power has the ambition to dominate a large share of the world in competition with others with the same ambition, its leader must work to make this possible through tactics and strategy like the creation and maintenance of alliances. His or her personal ambitions or moods cannot be allowed to undermine the power and position in the world of his country.
Leaders have a heavy responsibility in the present era where the fates of nations are decided. There is no room for amateurs who undermine the position of their country in the world and create internal divisions weakening their society. Small and medium-sized countries must unite or perish. Big powers must act strategically wise or become medium-sized powers.
