Non-archived link because I'm lazy and the BBC is funded by the loicense anyway.
His attempt to surrender global leadership and replace it with a more inward-looking, fortress-like mentality. I don't think it succeeded, but the question is how profound has the damage to America's international reputation been - and that remains to be seen.
War is peace.
There's plenty more stupidity in the article, but that was the bit stood out to me as just being fundamentally wicked.
I think it might be Syria. Russia is too deadly to confront head-on, and Iran's still too tough a nut to crack (not to mention I expect Biden will be eager to restore Obama's deal with them), but Syria lets them kill several birds with one stone.
By pummeling Syria they can kick Russia in the shins without invading territories Putin considers integral (I'm sure that will make Victoria Nuland, AKA Mrs. Euromaidan and the new #3 at the State Department, very happy), already have a pre-hyped big bad evil guy for the normie masses in Assad, it's an easy vector with which to (re-)destabilize the Middle East as a whole, it weakens the Iranian 'axis of resistance' by knocking out its central link etc. The benefits for the MIC, warhawks and MSM alike are plentiful, even at this late stage in the game. Oh and of course, Biden would just be picking up where Obama left off and Hillary promised to continue back in 2016.