But take a look at this one, from 2018:

It's the leaders of America's closest allies, all looking in one direction,

and President Trump looking in another.

It's just a photo, but it speaks to one of the biggest questions in the world right now.

Almost 70 years ago, the US built a network of alliances that helped make it

the most powerful country on earth.

But today the future of those alliances is in doubt.

And they were in trouble even before Donald Trump took office.

Now, the world is watching a US election that could determine what the future looks like.

So how did we get here?

What is Trump's vision for America's role in the world?

And what's the alternative?

In the beginning, the US had just one alliance:

with France, during the Revolutionary War against Great Britain.

But after the US won the war, it backed out.

And that's because, back then, allying with another country usually served one purpose:

Alliances were primarily used to fight and win specific wars.

The US was already protected by two giant oceans.

So for the next 150 years, America was alone.

Until 1941.

"The United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked."

When Japan attacked a US naval base, it shattered the idea

that oceans could protect the US any longer.

So they formed an alliance with these countries, and declared war on Japan and its allies.

Together, they won the war, but faced a very different world in the aftermath.

After World War II, there were only two major powers: the US and the Soviet Union.

European countries were weak,

and some worried the Soviets might invade them and spread communism.

To protect against that, the US formed a collective alliance with 11 other countries:

the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO.

The agreement was simple:

An armed attack on one member would be regarded as an attack on all,

requiring every member to come to its assistance.

But the reality was more complicated.

The US had a massive military, while these countries had weak ones, if any at all.

That meant NATO was really a guarantee by the US to protect all these countries from attacks.

It was risky, but it gave the US leverage over countries that now depended on them for protection.

It used that leverage to align those countries with its own foreign policy.

And many allowed the US to build military bases inside their borders,

giving the US a first line of defense against the Soviets.

But the US also saw threats elsewhere.

In 1948, North Korea had become a communist country. In 1949, so did China.

So the US signed individual alliances with six more countries.

The US also signed a collective alliance with 21 countries in Latin America.

By 1960, the Soviet Union was surrounded by countries that, if attacked,

would trigger war with the US.

For hundreds of years, alliances had been used to fight and win specific wars.

This was something new:

The real gamble that the United States was taking

was the idea that it would use alliances to keep wars from starting at all.

One of the first tests of this idea came in Berlin.

The city lay deep in Soviet- controlled East Germany, but was divided

between the NATO countries and the Soviets.

In 1961, the Soviet leader told western powers to leave.

Instead, the US and its allies quickly moved troops into Berlin.

And the US publicly committed to uphold its promise:

In response, the Soviets built a wall through the city -- and backed down.

The US guarantee also helped prevent further wars in Taiwan and Korea.

It proved that this system worked, but only if America's enemies and allies actually

trusted that the US would follow through.

So for the next 60 years, US presidents said it out loud.

"A nation cannot remain great if it betrays its allies and lets down its friends."

“Our ties with Japan and our European allies are stronger than ever.

"We will strengthen our historic ties and assure them of our support and firm commitment.”

And it worked: The Soviets believed it.

World War III never happened.

And the US won the Cold War.

"History is unfolding in the Soviet Union."

"Last one out of the Soviet Union, please turn out the lights."

"The United States recognizes and welcomes

the emergence of a free, independent, and democratic Russia."

Between 1989 and 1991, the Soviet Union and its communist allies in Europe fell apart.

Now the US was the world's only superpower. And most of its allies were safe from invasion.

But for NATO, that created an existential question:

Should the alliance go out of business because its primary adversary had disassembled itself?

Or should it find a new case for its being?

European leaders, and many American leaders, supported keeping NATO around,

to support democracy and security in Europe.

"Ultimately the best strategy to ensure our security, and to build a durable peace,

is to support the advance of democracy elsewhere."

"It would be a catastrophe for American interests

if instability were to alter the current situation in Europe."

"We want the peace to last."

In 1999, NATO added 3 former Soviet allies: Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary.

And NATO started intervening in conflicts outside of its membership.

In 1999, it bombed Serbian forces fighting in Kosovo.

NATO also helped the US invade Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks in 2001,

and supported parts of the war in Iraq in 2003.

Meanwhile, in Asia, the US had stayed close with South Korea and Japan to counter North Korea.

But the fall of the Soviet Union had made the alliances with these countries harder to justify.

Those relationships in a lot of ways, went adrift.

And that all created something of a soft strategic underbelly in Southeast Asia.

Some US leaders began to question the cost of those alliances.

The US had asked NATO allies to spend 2% of their GDP on defense,

but few countries were meeting that goal.

So they urged NATO, along with South Korea and Japan, to increase their spending --

while still reaffirming its promise to back its allies.

“Their cause is America's cause.”

“We will defend our allies and our interests."

“America will always act, alone if necessary, to protect our people and our allies.”

Still, these alliances were drifting.

And two countries were starting to test their weak points.

“Russian planes again bombing Georgian targets this morning…”

In 2004 NATO had added seven more members —

including these three, known as the Baltic States.

Leaders in Russia became concerned that NATO had reached its borders.

And after NATO made plans to add Georgia and Ukraine, it decided to act.

Russia invaded Georgia in 2008, then Ukraine in 2014,

preventing either country from joining NATO.

But those invasions also had another purpose:

You could think about Russia's invasion of Ukraine as a prelude to what could happen,

if Russia decided to make a quick fait accompli grab in the Baltics.

Russia was building up a massive military presence along its border,

and now its willingness to invade its neighbors raised an uncomfortable question:

Would the US and its allies actually be willing to go to war

to defend one of these small countries?

In Asia, China developed a similar strategy.

Since the end of the Cold War, China had become the second biggest economy in the world.

And it built a military and missile stockpile capable of controlling this whole region.

Both Russia and China have developed military strategies

that seek to demonstrate to American allies that the United States can't protect them.

They've also introduced strategies that advanced their own regional interests,

but in ways that wouldn't trigger a US response.

Russia began launching cyber attacks all over Europe,

and spreading disinformation in support of radical politicians.

In the South China Sea, China turned remote reefs into man-made islands

with military bases on them.

All in an area disputed by many countries.

It's also issued huge loans and built infrastructure projects in dozens of countries around the world,

giving them not just economic leverage in those places, but political leverage as well.

Russia and China leave the United States and its allies scrambling to respond,

and without triggering a treaty commitment that might result

in their cooperation to defend their mutual interests.

All of this is designed to force America's allies to doubt its commitment,

and potentially peel off from each other, and the US.

But exactly how the US should deal with this was unclear.

Then, in 2016, it elected a president who took things in a dramatically new direction.

"We've defended other nations' borders.

Subsidized the armies of other countries.

It's going to be only, America First."

President Trump's view was that many international agreements were inherently unfair to the US,

and that the US could get a better deal by negotiating relationships with each individual country.

So he pulled the US out of several agreements previously made with allies.

And he considered withdrawing from alliances unless allies spent more on defense.

“NATO members must finally contribute their fair share

and meet their financial obligations."

Trump had a point. In 2016, many allies were still under their spending goals.

He demanded that NATO, South Korea and Japan dramatically increase it or face consequences.

"South Korea's costing us five billion dollars a year, and they were paying about 500 million,

for $5 billion worth of protection. And we have to do better than that."

In 2018, he abruptly cancelled military exercises with South Korea.

And in 2020, he pulled 12,000 troops out of Germany.

All this has caused US allies to further doubt the US's promises.

In some cases, it's made them move closer to its adversaries.

Even the United States's, closest allies in Asia, like Japan,

have increasingly deepened their ties with China.

So what we're starting to see is a set of hedging behaviors,

in case the United States does not return to the status of a predictable ally.

And now, these countries are watching an election that could decide if the US will continue

to pull away from its alliances, or come back.

Trump's opponent, Joe Biden,

was one of the most vocal supporters of the US alliance system as a senator and vice president.

"Working cooperatively with other nations, to share our values and goals,

doesn't make America suckers. It makes us more secure."

And he's running on a platform that would pull America's allies closer.

"Who's the first world leader you would reach out to?"

“I would call a meeting of NATO leadership,

and I would make clear that we're back.”

But the limitations of these alliances are also the reason the US is in this situation to begin with.

And how exactly to update this decades-old system is a daunting question.

What's certain is that Russia and China will keep trying to separate America from its allies.

And the next president will have a huge amount of power over what to do about it.

He'll have to answer something that every American ally is wondering:

Who does the US want to be in the world?

Thanks for watching this episode of our 2020 election series.

We asked you what you think the candidates should be talking about,

and America's role in the world was one of the most common requests.

Markus asked that we cover "the new relationships with other countries,

both close allies, friends, partners, as well as rivals and

historical counterparts.

Jonathon asked about the international position of the US and

and especially how to restore the US's relationship with allies.

And Tim asked, "how will the nominees repair America's relationship with

the governments and peoples of key allies like Germany, South Korea, Japan and France?

We're still working on more episodes,

but we still want to hear what you think the candidates should be speaking about.

So please visit us at vox.com/ElectionVideos

And finally we'd like to thank our sponsor for these videos, Absolut,

who'd like to encourage every American to make their voices heard

and prioritize voting this election.

So whatever you do, please drink responsibly, and vote responsibly.