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.