What I am hitting at, is the strategy behind the intention to avoid wars. I go for a Diplowin myself, maybe a slightly more brutal one, but a realist one. The pure isolationism stance is too simplistic to secure any victory, but the histographic one.
We only go for profits, not relations in trade
we never commit to any international partner before it is too late
Rejection of proposals is the prevaling thought, not coming up with alternatives
We never consider balance of power as an issue, the isolationists said, it is all their business, stay out of it
How can we stay out of business when we sit on most luxes, techs, and gold`?
Finally, I see no international strategy at all, beyond our defensible city doctrines and some max profit for trade. Poor Nobody gets all of his proposals shot down by the isolationists, and when we sign a deal, it is a last minute attempt to get a war we gets
anyways. Iroq, Zulu and now Russia sets a pattern, last minute patching up of relations, after centuries of strong arm diplomacy.