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.
Of course the British want America to be hawkish, we did bail their asses out in the 40's.
Hell, all of europe wants America to be hawkish, otherwise they can't keep relying on our military to prop them up and disrupt Russia's slow encroachment on their shit.
They could just as easily defend themselves from Russian influence and aggression. But then they would have to actually equip their troops with real guns instead of broomsticks, and that might mean cutting out their generous welfare programs that they couldnt afford otherwise (and technically STILL cant afford).
ooor, we kick out the occupying us, start an honest relationship with russia and you guys go bankrupt over night after the petro-dollar is now worthless.
oh wait, that won't happen. we got the same traitorous scum in our parlaments as you guys do in your senate and congress.
Trump stood up to China and did enough damage that the chinks were complaining that they couldn't fix him like Clinton, Bush, and Obama. Obama was so accommodating to the noodle niggers that he forced Phillipines to surrender their sovereign territory when they asked for the US to defend them from Xinnie the Pooh.
The "damage" to America's international reputation was invented from thin air by the media and establishment politicians.
True that
Americas international reputation just took a rocket dive into the dirt. The actual people in power won't play along with the "uncle joe" nonsense and of course know hes a paper puppet, and the only reason they'll play pretend with him is to get access to the actual masters.
America just got kneecapped and they want to pretend they're helping it up instead of aiming for the head next.
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.